Tapsearch Com EditorMaine municipality makes it illegal to smoke in cars with kids present
January 9th 2007 17:18
The media coverage of this story makes it sound much more dire than it really is. The headline is "Bangor Makes it Illegal to Smoke in Cars," but the municipality didn't really do that at all.
From the story:
"The Bangor City Council approved a measure Monday that prohibits people from smoking in vehicles when children are present."
Those last four words are kind of critical, wouldn't you say (note to Drudge, who parroted the headline)? I'm as big a smokers-rights activist as any (it blows my mind when people go to bars to get smashed and often "hook up," then want the government to protect them from delicious-smelling smoke), but the state does have a compelling interest in protecting children. No matter how libertarian one is, it should be illegal to abuse them, for instance.
So, the question is, does 18 years of second-hand car smoke warrant state intrusion into the parent-child relationship? I've been critical of second-hand smoke hype in terms of public areas -- occasional contact with it really won't hurt you -- but I don't think anyone seriously argues that extensive exposure to smoke, especially in enclosed areas, is harmful to health.
One side, from the story:
"People who smoke with children present in the confined space of a car or truck might as well be deliberately trying to kill those children, said City Councilor Patricia Blanchette, who is a smoker."
I can't say I'd support the legislation in my own town -- parents should have a pretty wide latitude in raising their kids, and subjecting children to a moderately unpleasant and unhealthy atmosphere falls pretty solidly within that, just as feeding kids fatty food does -- but I do think a municipality has the right to pass this law if they so choose. It's a far cry from the impression the headline gives, that of a municipality dictating consensual adult behavior on private property. Adult treatment of children, who rarely consent to the conditions imposed on them and couldn't legally if they did, has long been a subject of government regulation.
Another surprising tidbit from the story:
"When the law goes into effect next week, Bangor will become the first municipality in Maine to have such a law. Similar statewide measures have been adopted in Arkansas and Louisiana and are under consideration in several other states."
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
From the story:
"The Bangor City Council approved a measure Monday that prohibits people from smoking in vehicles when children are present."
Those last four words are kind of critical, wouldn't you say (note to Drudge, who parroted the headline)? I'm as big a smokers-rights activist as any (it blows my mind when people go to bars to get smashed and often "hook up," then want the government to protect them from delicious-smelling smoke), but the state does have a compelling interest in protecting children. No matter how libertarian one is, it should be illegal to abuse them, for instance.
So, the question is, does 18 years of second-hand car smoke warrant state intrusion into the parent-child relationship? I've been critical of second-hand smoke hype in terms of public areas -- occasional contact with it really won't hurt you -- but I don't think anyone seriously argues that extensive exposure to smoke, especially in enclosed areas, is harmful to health.
One side, from the story:
"People who smoke with children present in the confined space of a car or truck might as well be deliberately trying to kill those children, said City Councilor Patricia Blanchette, who is a smoker."
I can't say I'd support the legislation in my own town -- parents should have a pretty wide latitude in raising their kids, and subjecting children to a moderately unpleasant and unhealthy atmosphere falls pretty solidly within that, just as feeding kids fatty food does -- but I do think a municipality has the right to pass this law if they so choose. It's a far cry from the impression the headline gives, that of a municipality dictating consensual adult behavior on private property. Adult treatment of children, who rarely consent to the conditions imposed on them and couldn't legally if they did, has long been a subject of government regulation.
Another surprising tidbit from the story:
"When the law goes into effect next week, Bangor will become the first municipality in Maine to have such a law. Similar statewide measures have been adopted in Arkansas and Louisiana and are under consideration in several other states."
Robert VerBruggen blogs at http://www.therationale.com and http://robertsrationale.blogspot.com.
| 51 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
